Following the recent civil court judgements against the Post Office (POL):
https://ccrc.gov.uk/the-ccrc-refers-eight-more-post-office-cases-for-appeal-bringing-total-to-47-so-far/
While nothing should be allowed to detract from the scale of the Post Office's alleged misbehaviour which appears...

On the contrary - wearers give out the message "I think I might be dangerous but I only care about myself and have left my house anyway - you' should keep away from me for your own good!" People who should be remaining at home instead put on a useless mask and think it's then OK to go out and...

I'd suggest keeping it short and simple at this point though there are plenty of templates online for tougher responses - no knowledge of, don't accept owe, dispute the debt; cease all collection activity until the dispute has been investigated, provide sufficient evidence you are liable for the...

Something odd going on here. Are they using the wrong template for the letter? Or are they thinking of prosecuting for a serious offence for which the 6 month time limit does not apply? After this length of time the least they could do is include their evidence of the debt with the letter.
So...

That's not a great letter - surely a PF on the DLR won't have been issued for the enormous sum of £110, so what's the breakdown of (and complete basis for) their claim? How can you be expected to remember the details after over 6 years? Merely say you dispute the debt and should there be legal...

A failure to accept a valid ticket may put the company in breach of its franchise agreement, which would be a matter for the DfT to investigate, and an attempt to sell a new ticket when no money was due could be a breach of consumer law, which is the sort of thing the ORR is supposed to be...

I think it is clear that the issuance of a PF makes the situation a civil matter not a criminal one - that's the whole point of the system. Unless there was new information discovered that was not available to the company at the time the PF was issued which, if known, would have led to that...

If you've got a summons you really should respond to the court yourself - don't take the chance that GWR won't misplace its paperwork and get you convicted in your absence! Notify the court of (the relevant part of) what has been agreed yourself. E.g. if the last response from GWR was in...

It rarely is - difficult even with legal representation.
Witness statements and cross-examination could assist.
I doubt it would make any difference in terms of "abuse of process" (unless the OP said something materially misleading) as "the company" is a single entity which was capable of...

(There may also be a flaw in the quoted response: "We therefore feel the value of the administrative charge is reasonable." suggests the company might have applied the wrong legal test and as such the level of that charge might be open to challenge - but it could cost you more to challenge if...

The precise details of the conversations that took place on both occasions might be crucial - whether (a representative of) the company twice said you would "be fine if I actually did have valid ticket" without mentioning that the company would also require an additional sum of money to be paid...

The "three fails" - but why is the quotation truncated in the charge? (Might it get amended?) What is this reference to 'penalty' in the first post all about? Was the correct fare offered on the spot? Was correct name and address provided? (Might the company be trying to develop new law?)

That is an old picture so it's for the OP to say if the new ones still have the same problems or not, but that says "on use" not "before use" and doesn't say whether the user or the railway fills it in. It also says it is valid for 3 months and the word 'single' is ambiguous - for a single...